In #25, the MTD, the defendants attempt to restate the question of carry as one of only concealed carry and not carry in general. Assuming arguendo, that some form of public carry is within the scope of the 2A, IL laws still satisfy means-end rationality and are therefore constitutional. Public Carry does not implicate the "core" right to possess and carry within the home.

IL demonstrates, once again, the absolute misreading of Heller and McDonald. Going a bit further, the Brief flat out says that the court in Ezell was wrong (and this court should ignore it).

In #26, the Opposition to the plaintiffs MPI, the defendants regurgitate more of the above. Thus making Stephan Halbrook's point in his reply to the US response in Masciandaro.

So then I went and looked at Shepard v. Illinois (the NRA "companion" case). Imagine my surprise to find the same arguments, right down to an MTD in response to the complaint and an opposition to the plaintiffs MPI!

And, of course, the Brady Bunch is filing the same amicus that they filed in Moore.

Why change what has become a "winning" strategy! If a cert grant in either Williams or Maciandaro is given, this will all change rather dramatically.